Hi Willem,
Thanks for the review comments.
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the
> content is safe
>
> Mohan Prasad J wrote:
> > Add selftest case for testing the speed and duplex state of local NIC
> > driver and the partner based on the supported link modes obtained from
> > the ethtool. Speed and duplex states are varied and verified using
> > ethtool.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mohan Prasad J <mohan.prasad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > .../drivers/net/hw/nic_basic_tests.py | 46 +++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/hw/nic_basic_tests.py
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/hw/nic_basic_tests.py
> > index 27f780032..ff46f2406 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/hw/nic_basic_tests.py
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/hw/nic_basic_tests.py
> > @@ -42,6 +42,14 @@ from lib.py import ethtool """Global variables"""
> > common_link_modes = []
> >
> > +def check_autonegotiation(ifname: str) -> None:
> > + autoneg = get_ethtool_content(ifname, "Supports auto-negotiation:")
> > + partner_autoneg = get_ethtool_content(ifname, "Link partner
> > +advertised auto-negotiation:")
> > +
> > + """Check if auto-neg supported by local and partner NIC"""
> > + if autoneg[0] != "Yes" or partner_autoneg[0] != "Yes":
> > + raise KsftSkipEx(f"Interface {ifname} or partner does not
> > + support auto-negotiation")
> > +
> > def get_ethtool_content(ifname: str, field: str):
> > capture = False
> > content = []
> > @@ -112,6 +120,25 @@ def verify_autonegotiation(ifname: str,
> expected_state: str) -> None:
> >
> > ksft_eq(actual_state, expected_state)
> >
> > +def set_speed_and_duplex(ifname: str, speed: str, duplex: str) -> None:
> > + """Set the speed and duplex state for the interface"""
> > + process = ethtool(f"--change {ifname} speed {speed} duplex
> > +{duplex} autoneg on")
> > +
> > + if process.ret != 0:
> > + raise KsftFailEx(f"Not able to set speed and duplex parameters for
> {ifname}")
> > + ksft_pr(f"Speed: {speed} Mbps, Duplex: {duplex} set for
> > + Interface: {ifname}")
> > +
> > +def verify_speed_and_duplex(ifname: str, expected_speed: str,
> expected_duplex: str) -> None:
> > + verify_link_up(ifname)
> > + """Verifying the speed and duplex state for the interface"""
> > + with open(f"/sys/class/net/{ifname}/speed", "r") as fp:
> > + actual_speed = fp.read().strip()
> > + with open(f"/sys/class/net/{ifname}/duplex", "r") as fp:
> > + actual_duplex = fp.read().strip()
> > +
> > + ksft_eq(actual_speed, expected_speed)
> > + ksft_eq(actual_duplex, expected_duplex)
> > +
> > def test_link_modes(cfg) -> None:
> > global common_link_modes
> > link_modes = get_ethtool_content(cfg.ifname, "Supported link
> > modes:") @@ -136,6 +163,25 @@ def test_autonegotiation(cfg) -> None:
> > else:
> > raise KsftSkipEx(f"Auto-Negotiation is not supported for
> > interface {cfg.ifname}")
> >
> > +def test_network_speed(cfg) -> None:
> > + check_autonegotiation(cfg.ifname)
> > + if not common_link_modes:
> > + KsftSkipEx("No common link modes exist")
> > + speeds, duplex_modes = get_speed_duplex(common_link_modes)
> > +
> > + if speeds and duplex_modes and len(speeds) == len(duplex_modes):
> > + for idx in range(len(speeds)):
> > + speed = speeds[idx]
> > + duplex = duplex_modes[idx]
> > + set_speed_and_duplex(cfg.ifname, speed, duplex)
> > + time.sleep(sleep_time)
> > + verify_speed_and_duplex(cfg.ifname, speed, duplex)
> > + else:
> > + if not speeds or not duplex_modes:
> > + KsftSkipEx(f"No supported speeds or duplex modes found for
> interface {cfg.ifname}")
> > + else:
> > + KsftSkipEx("Mismatch in the number of speeds and duplex
> > + modes")
> > +
>
> Do these tests reset configuration to their original state?
Currently these tests do not reset configuration to their original state.
However resetting would be a good idea, I will either do it here (or) at the end of the tests.
>
> More high level: basic test is not very descriptive. Can they have a more
> precise name? Perhaps link layer operations or link layer config?
I will have a check on the naming and update it accordingly.
